Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK's Anti-File-Sharing Bill Could "Breach Human Rights"

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the once-more-unto-the-breach dept.

Government 119

Grumbleduke writes "The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has recently reported on the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to restrict the connections of anyone accused of infringing copyright using the Internet. According to the BBC, the committee noted the lack of details in the Bill as it stands, asking for 'further information' from the government on several issues. They also raised concerns that some punishments under the bill could be 'applied in a disproportionate manner' and said that the powers the bill granted to the Secretary of State (i.e. Lord Mandelson) were 'overly broad.' These echo the concerns raised in recent months by the Open Rights Group, a consortium of web companies including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and eBay, as well as the UK's Pirate Party. The Bill is currently being scrutinized by the House of Lords, and if it passes there, will likely be forced through the Commons quickly, despite the opposition from the public, industry and members of parliament. The committee's full report can be found on the parliament website."

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Priorities (5, Insightful)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045244)

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

Re:Priorities (5, Funny)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045330)

those who share alot of files may be more likely to leave their computers on over-night or have a 'torrent box' that is left on all the time. Therefore by reducing the incidence of file sharing, infinitesimaly small reductions in energy consumption can be made. File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking as you name it. These people must be stopped before the inevitable evolution to worse crimes.

Re:Priorities (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045438)

Also note the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset.

Re:Priorities (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045906)

Britannia waives the rules!

It's not about "file sharing." It is cementing the establishment of the international, corporate meta-State.

You have no choice.

Re:Priorities (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047420)

All hail BRITANNIA!

</geass>

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048482)

/A/non approves of this statement.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045444)

Shall I mod you +1 funny or -1 bad spelling?

Re:Priorities (2, Funny)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045942)

Definitely mod him +1 funy

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045494)

"File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking"

Oh man, that's one of the funniest things I've read in ages. Here, let me add to it.

Because I download and enjoy a game that's worth maybe 3/4 of what the shelf cost is, I'm suddenly one step away from renting out my 23 y/o sister to a local Amish pimp here in Pennsylvania. Oh, she'll help you churn butter... if you catch my drift. ;-)

Re:Priorities (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045562)

File sharing is a gateway crime. Jesus, please do not give the RIAA any ideas. The ones they have now are scary enough.

Re:Priorities (0, Redundant)

calzakk (1455889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046204)

File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking as you name it.

Either you're an idiot, or you forgot to add "...not!"

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046440)

Either you're an idiot who thinks adding "...not!" to a sentence isn't the surest possible way to sound like one, or you're practising a much more subtle form of sarcasm than he is.

Re:Priorities (0)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045352)

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing.

Don't worry, they still have time to spend £1.2M on an inquiry into expenses [bbc.co.uk] that has resulted in £1.1M being clawed back. (Instead of just fixing the gorram system and letting the police and taxmen deal with the handful of really dodgy cases).

Re:Priorities (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045402)

Worth pointing out perhaps that of the £1.16m spent a significant amount will be clawed back through income taxes, and there's no detail there of how much of that cost is actually incremental rather than an allocation of central costs that were going to be spent anyway. The taxation point, by the by, is quite significant since one of the important points surrounding the excessive claims is that they were not being taxed, often at direct odds with the taxation rules governing you and I.

Re:Priorities (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045880)

Worth pointing out perhaps that of the £1.16m spent a significant amount will be clawed back through income taxes,

I suspect that the people involved have rather good accountants and won't pay a brass farthing more in tax than they have to.

Meanwhile, remember that some of that "clawback" money had already been paid back voluntarily while some of it will never get repaid without incurring even more legal costs...

and there's no detail there of how much of that cost is actually incremental rather than an allocation of central costs that were going to be spent anyway.

Unless the staff in question were otherwise sitting around twiddling their thumbs on full salary (oh, and probably phoning lawyers and accountants from time to time for a billable-hours chat about football) that's still 1.2M worth of time and effort expended on job X that can't now be allocated to job Y.

The taxation point, by the by, is quite significant since one of the important points surrounding the excessive claims is that they were not being taxed, often at direct odds with the taxation rules governing you and I.

If you're paying UK income tax on bone fide expenses incurred as part of your job then you should get professional advice because you probably don't need to. If, however, you've avoided paying thousands of pounds of capital gains tax after selling your expenses-funded second home by telling the taxman it was your main residence, then there are some nice people in the Inland Revenue with black briefcases who most definitely are paid by centrally allocated funds to make your life a misery. Likewise, if you submit blatently fraudulent claims its a job for the Boys in Blue. As I said: fix the system for the future, and let the police and the taxmen deal with the small handful of really serious cases.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046090)

Wrong.

It is important that MPs/"MLs" must retain public confidence. Therefore it is worthwhile ensuring that they are seen to not be above the rules or the law. If that means we must spend £1.2m to get back £1.2m then that is a net gain due to increased confidence in their probity. Better would be making their expenses transparent going forward (will never happen).

Additionally, the serious cases are now referred to CPS and (as of today) 4 prosecutions are to be carried out.

Re:Priorities (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046830)

It is important that MPs/"MLs" must retain public confidence.

That ship has already sailed (on a nicely cleaned moat, nearly colliding with a duck house). The MPs are a laughing stock - being allowed to say "whoops - my bad" and pay them back doesn't really reassure the public much.

And, AFAIK, the CPS/Police investigation (the important one - dealing with the handful of claims that would get us mere mortals thrown in jail) has been running independently for months.

Re:Priorities (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045586)

You do understand the difference between one-off costs and recurring costs, don't you? And you are aware that the police are bringing criminal charges against 4 members of parliament over their expenses, which seem to be as a result of this enquiry. But no doubt you work for a company that never audits its own employees expenses because the police and taxman will make sure all claims are legitimate and anyway, who knows whether such an audit would recover it's own costs?

Re:Priorities (0)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046752)

You do understand the difference between one-off costs and recurring costs, don't you?

Yes. Do you?

Fixing the system for the future stops the recurring costs. Those reforms have already been announced. Trying to claw back money from the claims which with hindsight were unreasonable is a one-off cost which always carried a risk of costing more than it recovered.

And you are aware that the police are bringing criminal charges against 4 members of parliament over their expenses which seem to be as a result of this enquiry.

Actually, the police have been investigating these for months [bbc.co.uk] . Its actually more likely that the Legg inquiry was waiting on the criminal investigations so they could avoid reporting on the MPs facing charges (which could prejudice the cases).

But no doubt you work for a company that never audits its own employees expenses because the police and taxman will make sure all claims are legitimate and anyway, who knows whether such an audit would recover it's own costs?

Actually, my employers won't pay a bean without a receipt and a justification, and which audits expenses because they are terrified of the taxman. If they started clawing back expenses because they changed their mind on what was allowable there would be a major row.

Re:Priorities (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045358)

Or if they must tackle IT based crime how about identity fraud? They just don't give a crap about that becuase they'd actually have to get off their arses to do something about it. Much better to go after the copyright infringers!

Re:Priorities (3, Insightful)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045470)

They have a "solution" to that, which is to use it as a stick to motivate ID card systems. The New Labour government mindset sadly seems to be "We could fix everything if only we had more power and fewer of these inconvenient checks and balances!". I don't expect the Tories to be better though; I think the Tories have said they'll scrap the ID cards but I'm betting that'll be a marketing exercise on some level. They might get delayed / repurposed / renamed but I can't see them going away once there's been money spent and momentum built up within the civil service (not to mention once electioneering is over).

Re:Priorities (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045652)

I don't expect the Tories to be better though

I think that's a fair call. Every UK government in my lifetime -- and I'm no spring chicken -- has fought hard to increase it's own power, to limit the power of the population and to remove checks and balances on its actions. Irrespective of political party. This is something that I don't believe can be solved through the ballot box, because whoever wins the election will be handed enough power to be sure of corrupting them.

Re:Priorities (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046448)

Every government in human (pre)history -- has fought hard to increase it's own power, to limit the power of the population and to remove checks and balances on its actions.

It's inherent in the word "govern" (3, Insightful)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047256)

Government increases its own power, without limit, until stopped by some other force. It's inherent in the word "govern" - which means to control. Government was, is, and always will be the control of the many by the few - that's what the word means.

This will change only when we stop accepting that we and our fellow human beings need to be controlled - to be "govern"ed - by some external force, and we each consciously take on our individual responsibility to contribute to society and create a new form of social organization.

The increasing power of government is exactly like the increasing pain of an untreated disease - its purpose is to do whatever is necessary to get the organism to wake up and respond. As long as the organism ignores the symptom, the only chance for healing is for the disease to increase the pain. The symptom is never the problem. Ignoring the symptom is the problem. The symptom is the call to heal.

So from a holistic or systemic view we can see the increase in the power (and abuses) of government is actually humanity's way of trying to call attention to our real illness: the unresponsiveness, and most accurately the unconsciousness, of the rest of the body politic - i.e., each of us.

Our only choice is whether we hear the call and respond.

Re:It's inherent in the word "govern" (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047334)

We're too weak as a species to successfully implement Anarchy as a form of governance.

Sorry =(

Re:It's inherent in the word "govern" (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31049384)

Okay, so we're in your society, and the big media organisations send round people with more arms than you to forcibly remove your Internet connection. What now?

Re:Priorities (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045504)

No, the reason is because America's only real export* these days is its shitty but infectious pop-culture.

No joke** - it's a matter of our national security. Every time a teenybopper pirates the latest Britney Spears song, an American housewife has to suck a strange nigger's dick to put food on the table. Too bad, so sad.


* That's not sarcasm.
** I'm not fucking kidding. Really. I'm not.

Re:Priorities (1)

OldEarthResident (1724062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045366)

This government is going to be out of power in the next 3 months or so (which is when the next election must be held by), and Mandelson clearly wants to get this passed as law before the election.

Unfortunately, there's no real evidence that the Conservatives will be any better.

Re:Priorities (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045392)

While I don't subscribe to this, I've often heard it claimed on Slashdot and other forums that since the West has given up its manufacturing base to the developing world, all its economy has left is creative works like Hollywood and the music industry. Countries like China and India can accept massive pirating because their economy has another basis, but if the West allows free distribution of media, then it undermines all that is keeping it afloat.

Re:Priorities (1)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045472)

Yes, our economy is now based on massive consumption and yet we don't *make* anything anymore. Maybe that's actually the real problem.

Re:Priorities (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046632)

I still do! Mind you, I make prototypes: I _expect_ the foreign factories to find ways to cut costs and streamline the manufacture.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048222)

So, go make something.

Re:Priorities (3, Insightful)

dogeatery (1305399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045672)

This is truer of the US than the UK. The only thing the US exports is intellectual property and military equipment - IT stuff and media products like films and music.

(Chalmers Johnson calls the military a makework program with a giant foothold in places where manufacturing jobs disappeared and local reps have no choice but to give their constituents a Lockheed plant. )

Re:Priorities (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045736)

No It's the same here in the UK, we sell military equipement, corruptly (BAE), and have the uncanny ability to make TV shows that cost buttons to make yet make huge profits (American Idol).

We also make erm.....

Re:Priorities (1)

GrievousMistake (880829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046538)

Are you sure? The CIA world factbook lists the US as having the 4th largest export in US. dollars in the world - counting the EU.

Re:Priorities (2, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046652)

The UK economy is dominated by the financial sector - which sells 'products' with a similarly shaky value as the so-called 'creative' industry.

Re:Priorities (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045726)

By limiting the freedom of expression you limit creativity. Sure some corporations are losing some money to free distribution, but it is their problem to solve, it's the natural evolution of business, adapt or die. As for other countries evolving, the more advanced they are the bigger market and demand they create.

Re:Priorities (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045826)

Actually China and India are good examples of how the artists can still make plenty of money and even benefit from piracy.

The average Chinese or Indian citizen cannot afford to pay the prices we do for a CD. Only pirates can manufacture the discs cheaply enough to sell them at an affordable price and still make a small profit. That's a good thing for both the artist, who gets their work distributed for free and then benefits from increased patronage/sponsorship deals/etc. and a good thing for the pirate who makes a living and maybe even employs others. Since the official CDs are unaffordable anyway there isn't even a lost sale in many cases.

That gets right to the heart of the problem: it used to cost a lot of money to copy media so it was relatively easy to control, but now the price of copying is basically free (internet) or extremely low (CD). As a producer of copyrightable work I think you just have to accept that people will be able to make copies for free now. I am one such producer, in fact I release most stuff as open source anyway, and people still pay me for copies. I do okay out of it in fact.

Re:Priorities (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046118)

Countries like China and India can accept massive pirating because their economy has another basis, but if the West allows free distribution of media, then it undermines all that is keeping it afloat.

Actually if the Chinese and Indians don't pay us for intellectual property then how do we get the money to pay for their physical goods? (Yeah, they're lending money to pay it back, great. And when payback time, they will use it to buy companies that'll provide them the technological lead.)

Re:Priorities (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046634)

At the risk of a Godwin, that is like saying "Nazi Germany has give up voluntary factory work, all its economy has left is slave labour". If our economic model is doomed without infringement on civil liberties, then change the goddamn model!

Re:Priorities (2, Insightful)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047748)

I would challenge that such a large part of the economy is really made up of creative works, but a quick google search did not provide me an adequate chart.

In any case, curbing piracy inside the US will do the US economy no good no matter how large a portion is based on 'intellectual property'. There is zero net gain in wealth, it just moves around from one content producer to another and in the end no net wealth is created and the value of the goods is questionable and subjective. What really matters in terms of wealth is if the US can export things to other countries in exchange for wealth. More importantly, can they build something of worth.

Now I'm not saying there is no value in arts and entertainment. But when you build a tractor, a year later you still have a tractor that can be used to keep a farm running or build a nation. When Brittany Spears and entourage make a music video, a year later you have a piss poor excuse for a washed out overplayed shitty tune and a less attractive drugged up woman who shaves her head and shows her snatch. The obnoxious tune ain't gonna put food on your table or a roof over your head and has probably lost any monetary 'value' as well.

Sure there's lots of 'intellectual property' of the engineering kind which can have a great positive and lasting impact on a society and even great art which can be used to fight oppression and disseminate fundamental truth. However I'm of the thinking that it should be shared freely and open to collaboration a la Linux kernel rather than patented forever; and that kind of tech sure as hell ain't coming out of Hollywood and the music industry. Even if sometimes science loosely follows science fiction.

The problem is that we've been sold this globalization bullshit like it was going to be good for us. It's not good for us, it tends to lower us to the average standard of living around the world while bringing some other areas out of the gutter. All the while leaving us with Feudalism 2.0 where a mixture of corporatism and big brother style government creates an elite group of families as the new aristocracy.

What's the solution? Screwed if I know, but I know that it is not giving in to the new stratospheric upper class and letting them further establish their fiefdoms. I'm sure it has something to do with fighting the centralization of power, bringing things back to a nationalist focus and implementing Austrian school economics and a fully functional free market system. Just remember that the more you decentralize power and bring it back to within your reach geographically, socially, physically and in other ways; the more you empower yourself to take control of your own life. And that is how it should be. Any time you feel like you're not in control of your life something is probably very wrong.

Re:Priorities (5, Informative)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045452)

I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.

What is also particularly impressive about this legislation is that it is entitled the "Digital Economy Bill" and followed on from the Digital Britain report. The original idea behind this process was to put into place any laws that would help boost the UK's digital sectors and make sure the country was at least 'up to date' with the rest of the western world if not ahead. However, rather than pushing for high-speed broadband, establishing tax incentives for tech firms or anything else that might actually help the UK economy, we have this badly-written piece of legislation.

The Bill itself contains 44 main clauses of legislation, of which the first 17 are just about online copyright infringement. The government didn't even attempt to hide their (controversial and most likely pointless) anti-file sharing policies behind anything that might help the economy. While there is a section in the middle about TV and radio broadcasting rights (i.e. the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum), it then returns to Video Game censorship/classification [parliament.uk] (essentially out-sourcing it to PEGI) which adds an extra burden on video game producers.

Then there is a fun section where the government helpfully demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about the "artist" or "content creator" (neither of which appear anywhere in the draft text). Clause 42 effectively creates a public licensing body for orphan work - which itself is quite a good idea (although a better way to make orphan works more available might be to reduce the duration of copyright) - but then they tag on an extra section that allows the body to

to grant copyright licences in respect of works in which copyright is not owned by the body or a person on whose behalf the body acts. - Clause 42, 116B, (1) [parliament.uk]

It seems that it is OK to take powers away from artists provided it is some large organisation (such as the RIAA-controlled PRS [prsformusic.com] ) that is benefiting (the PRS kept a "small administration/commission fee" of £67m in 2007 [prsformusic.com] or about 12% of their revenue) rather than the general public.

This Bill works out as a bad deal for internet users, content creators and even radio station operators. The bulk of the bill concerns adding further restrictions and costs on the digital sector; rather than helping the UK's "Digital Economy" this Bill seems to be doing all it can to hinder it. I guess that's what we should expect from an out-of-touch government and parliament full of politicians who care more about winning votes rather than doing the country any good.

Re:Priorities (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045686)

the government wants to push digital radio so it can sell off the rest of the radio spectrum

And, I suspect, so they could control what we listen to, because I can get lots of foreign stations on my analogue radio, but only UK stations on DAB. I'm not sure whether or when when internet radio will come out of its niche to defeat that.

Re:Priorities (1)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046800)

I think you need to learn what those FM/AM/LW buttons actually mean. I doubt you get any foreign FM stations. This page [wikipedia.org] will give you all the information you need.

Phillip.

Re:Priorities (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047284)

It's a long while since I have had a radio with an LW button, although I have one with a number of SW buttons. Not many people have, though.

Re:Priorities (1)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046746)

You are correct. Mandelson has perverted the Digital Britain initiative, chaired by Lord Carter, into a vehicle to be used by his media mogul buddies to economically rape its citizens. The initial idea was to more effectively use radio bandwidth, transition us from the analogue to digital age, use new bandwidth as a carrot to push telecoms companies to provide decent bandwidth to uneconomical rural areas, reducing "internet inequality", and help the country be more economically competitive in the new information age. It was corrupted by a self-appointed dictator and the Bill should rightly be spanked.

Phillip.

Re:Priorities (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046956)

Some of the details of the Bill started back with the Gowers Review [wikipedia.org] in 2005-06. This contained some quite interesting recommendations including:

  • not extending copyright (and in particular, not altered retrospectively),
  • a review of the TRIPS [wikipedia.org] agreement (to make the importation of drugs cheaper and easier, among other things),
  • allow libraries to format shift their content for archival purposes,
  • relax copyright laws (and add more 'fair use' exemptions),
  • look into requiring warnings on products with DRM (and making it easier to complain about it),
  • not extending patent laws (in particular, to cover software),
  • a huge review of the patent system (including ways to encourage competition),
  • match penalties for offline and online copyright infringement (the MAFIAA took this to mean that downloading a CD should be as bad as shoplifting one, but it actually only refers to commercial infringement),
  • look into legislating against pirates if the situation is bad after 2007.

Somehow, the only one of these that seemed to actually get anywhere was the last... The full text is here [nationalarchives.gov.uk] .

Interestingly, it included a "scorecard" of how different areas of 'intellectual property' work right now (page 44); out of Copyright, Designs, Patents and Trade Marks, three received "high performance" scores for being balanced, coherent and flexible (as far as the legislation). Copyright, however, got a medium score for balance and low for flexible.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045476)

Going after the widespread and serious crimes is difficult, hugely expensive and long-term. Handing over nearly arbitrary powers to redefine the law to whichever puppet politico fills his shoes come May, who will only ever be a phone-call away from the **AAs, is a piece of piss, immediate and will be eternally and generously funded by benevolent corporate sponsors. Does this government give a rat's ass about it being appropriate, effective, proportional, in keeping with its' citizens rights? No. Firstly, come May they're gone, and odds on come December 90% of them will be in well-remunerated financial and corporate positions thinking 'thank God I can finally stop pretending to care about my constituents or the law and get back to caring about my moat.'. Secondly, this has never been a government given to consideration: they've passed legislation creating ~4000 new criminal acts in 13 years of power - somewhere in the region of 1 new crime per day Parliament has been sitting with this party holding a majority.

If we're lucky the occasional sensible folks in the commons, the House of Lords and rights groups can at least run the clock out on this POS legislation, since it'll die the morning of May 7 if Darth Mandy can't get it shoved through (no doubt to be reincarnated as something else, but that's another fight). As of today, only one of the three ministers who were sheparding it through remain, the last having announced recently that he's standing down at the election to run for Mayor in his constituency - the more cynical among us assuming his thoughts were "running for reelection attached to this ? I might as well paint a target on myself."
Lord Mandy has about the same attitude to proportional response as the Sith who spawned him.

Re:Priorities (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045694)

Does any government give a rat's ass about it being appropriate, effective, proportional, in keeping with its' citizens rights? No.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Priorities (5, Interesting)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045518)

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Lord Mandelson having dinner with David Geffen of Dreamworks [timesonline.co.uk] , and I certainly wouldn't dream of suggesting that a politician whose first resignation was due to lying about business dealings might not be telling the whole truth when he denied discussing it with Geffen.

Re:Priorities (2, Insightful)

JohhnyTHM (799469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046144)

Sith Lord Mandelson is a lying fuck that should be in prison, not doing favours for his business friends again.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046714)

http://ghcq.eu :p

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048782)

In the immortal words of Mojo Nixon, "Bring me the head of David Geffen!" :)

Re:Priorities (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045576)

Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking?

Because the victims of rape and human trafficking aren't usually rich enough to buy politicians, which is what you have to do for the government not to consider you subhuman.

Re:Priorities (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045710)

In America this is because we are no longer a government of the people, we are a government of the corporation, and corporations make money by holding onto IP.

Re:Priorities (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045974)

It's because being able to freely exchange information is one of the most important tenets of freedom. It goes completely against the desire of most governments, which is to gain power and subdue the populace.

Some people may think it's about "copyright infringement", it's not. It's about controlling the public. It always has been.

The same technology used to fight "copyright infringement" can be used to further much more sinister plans.

Be vigilant. Even if you don't pirate a single byte you need to fight this.

murderers rapists gangsters fraudsters thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046008)

who do you think the politicians are anyway?
good upstanding people
heck no
look at all the people on rehab in hollywood and tell me there isnt something wrong when that block a shit gets to make our laws

Re:Priorities (2, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046610)

I believe that you have it backwards. Why _wouldn't_ they. Such control gains profound benefits for lawmakers.

* Control over copyrighted, marketable materials, which aids corporate contributors and large, campaign contributing parts of the entertainment industry.
* Control over network traffic: shutting down casual, incessant downloaders lets the ISP's and related industries such as telco's manage their costs far more effectively. This is actually understandable: the cost of providing basic connectivity, nationwide, is hampered by the cost of the "last mile" to remote locations. If they need fiber optic to handle all the Bittorrent traffic, it's going to take a lot longer and cost far more, and basic services for even the poor will cost far more.
* Control over network content: this is desired by governments, not only for criminal traffic, but political traffic. Go look at the Great Firewall of China and Google's adventures there for proof of such, and examine the excuses of "porn" used there, and "child porn" in the US and the UK, used to harass anonymous services and dropboxes for files.
* Control over information. This is related to to the others, but constitutes its own issue, because the control of _opposition_ traffic leads to better acceptance of your own claims and your own policies. Again, see the Great Firewall of China, and particularly its censure of any "Free Tibet" postings.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31047364)

The UK, USA and France police capitalist interests and property as their first priority. Everything else, like human rights, is far less important unless it appears that their "image" is in question, then they pretend to care for a while.

Re:Priorities (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31049372)

"Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking?"

I agree with your sentiments, but this is begging the question. I don't think anybody here can quote reliable figures on the effort spent on copyright law infringement vs. enforcement of laws relating to rape and human trafficking. I can certainly provide some anecdotal evidence: when somebody I knew was raped a number of years back, the swift attention provided by multiple police agencies resulted in the capture of the suspect (a BART train was stopped and the suspect was apprehended). The justice system was applied with equal force and the rapist got the punishment he deserved. The efforts were a huge order of magnitude beyond the attention they would have paid to, say, a report that my company was pirating PhotoShop. Your assertion that governments spend more effort on copyright violators than rapists and human traffickers is a bit shocking.

"Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change?"

Yes. But this is not related to the subject of file sharing. Beware of false dichotomies.

Mandelson sucks (2, Informative)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045262)

That Mandelson is a real crafty cocker. He wants power, and more power, and the more he gets, the more he wants. He can't be satisfied.

Re:Mandelson sucks (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045286)

Yeah, he lost his job for taking bribes twice before. There must be some evidence he took a pay-off from Geffen.

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045484)

Well, IIRC, once he lost his job for getting some admitted dodgy dealings, the second time he was officially cleared of wrongdoing but had resigned anyway. Personally I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him (but there'd be no point, since he'd fly back boomerang-style). But the second time he went he was, at least officially, actually in the clear.

Re:Mandelson sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045538)

Hey, if regular joes who are forced by the system to "plead out" on charges they are innocent of but fear they can't win in court because they can't afford a good lawyer still get the privilege of being treated like a felon for the rest of their lives then so do politicians who "plead out" in the court of public opinion by prematurely resigning.

Re:Mandelson sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045642)

but there'd be no point, since he'd fly back boomerang-style

You could always break the arms, then he won't come back.

Re:Mandelson sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045828)

The first resignation was for failing to declare a loan of £373,000 on his mortgage application. If Joe Public had done that they would go to jail for fraud. I presume MPs will be exempt from this law as well if it does go through.

Re:Mandelson sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045480)

That Mandelson is a real cock

Fixed it for you

Re:Mandelson sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048082)

That Lord Darth Mandelson is a real cock

FTFY

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

Ja'Achan (827610) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045546)

"What do all men with power want? More power."

Re:Mandelson sucks (2, Interesting)

CantGetAUserName (565692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045622)

Shock horror! New Labour proposes a law that grants ill-defined, barely-limited power to Secretary of State!

This bunch really don't seem to get that "trust us" doesn't wash. I hope that a) they get turfed out at the next election and b) their replacements are in some fashion better.

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046420)

This bunch really don't seem to get that "trust us" doesn't wash. I hope that a) they get turfed out at the next election and b) their replacements are in some fashion better.

a) Highly likely.
b) Highly unlikely. You don't really think that any replacement government would choose to give up any of their police state powers do you?

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046384)

That Mandelson is a real crafty cocker. He wants power, and more power, and the more he gets, the more he wants. He can't be satisfied.

So in that respect he is just like every other politician. The only way to tell these scum apart is by the different lies they tell to con people into voting for them.

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046850)

It's not the first time we've had a power crazed nutjob like Mandelson. Though he is far more intelligent than most of them. This is why we have a strong civil service (watch "Yes Minister" if you have never seen it, very funny) and the House of Lords as a safety net. The shame is that if he actually worked for the people paying his salary (the tax payer) and not for his rich mates he wants to do favours for, he would actually be quite a good asset for the country.

Phillip.

Re:Mandelson sucks (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047008)

This is why we have a strong civil service (watch "Yes Minister" if you have never seen it, very funny) and the House of Lords as a safety net.

I have just finished watching all three series of "Yes, Minister" and I've finished the first series of "Yes, Prime Minister".

I would point out that the "strong civil service" was usually portrayed as wanting to increase their own empires (and, with it, power). I don't know how much of it came from truth, but legend has it that Margaret Thatcher considered it compulsory viewing for junior ministers and there was a surprising amount of research going on behind the scenes.

Most of the proposals Labour has put forward over the years also dramatically increase their own power, generally with powers which are so far open to abuse it's amazing that anyone was stupid enough to propose them in the first place. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is the most obvious one that springs to mind - it's already been abused quite a bit - but there are plenty more laws on the books which are open to serious abuse. The Proceeds of Crime Act is another: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6892915.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Accuse anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045288)

Doesnt that mean that one could accuse each and every single person inside these copyright agencies, I suppose in this case the only way to fight them is to make them hate there own ways.

Re:Accuse anyone (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045388)

You'd need their IP address. I'm sure the entire block assigned
to parliament could be blocked by 20 or 30 people with little
effort.

The best outcome might be... (1)

SadielCuentas (1253300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045450)

... if this bill pass as it is right now. Then the UK Pirate Party would get some more voters love!

Re:The best outcome might be... (2)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045512)

The best outcome might be if this bill pass as it is right now. Then the UK Pirate Party would get some more voters love!

We can hope so. More likely the majority of the population will be happy reading about a bill aimed at "cutting off those evil illegal downloaders clogging up the intertubes" and vote Labour or Conservative (or even Lib Dem) just because they did last time.

Still, the Pirate movement is growing, both in the UK and the rest of the world; maybe things will start to change. [Disclaimer: Yes, I am a member of PPUK [pirateparty.org.uk] and currently work for Pirate Parties International [pp-international.net] .]

Re:The best outcome might be... (4, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045728)

It's certainly the issue that get us the most publicity, but as party leader, I'd be much much happier if the Pirate Party UK helped to change the bill for the better.

There are some insanely draconian powers in the bill as it currently stands, it sidesteps the right to a fair trial, and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It also makes the owner of a wifi access point punishable for allegations of copyright infringement, rather than being considered a common carrier, which will mean the end of free wifi in the UK.

"despite the opposition from the public" (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045552)

Doesn't it seem like no matter what country we're talking about, when it comes to governments passing these types of restrictive laws, we're seeing this more and more?

Could "Breach Human Rights" (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045554)

You want rights? Alright - the day we defeat Eastasia, we'll start thinking about rights. Ooops, my mistake - Eastasia is our ally this month, it's Eurasia we have to defeat!

Buncha whiney sissies, who needs rights anyway?

Re: Could "Breach Human Rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31045674)

NO!! We were ALWAYS at war with Eurasia! Do keep up.

UK (&others) have corrupt PARTIES, not just po (4, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045570)

Qui buono? Who benefits? The people? Or copyright holders? This one is obviously the latter. How do they get such favors? Through some obscure mechanism to earn support. Most likely party funding.

Many people complain about the US system (&Japan) where individual candidates raise their own campaign funds. And would like to limit them. But at least these systems produce independant legislators.

It was a spectacle when Tony Blair thrice put down backbencher revolts over UK involvement in Iraq (quite reasonably, labor platforms & supporters have always been dovish and somewhat antiUS). This convinced me that the UK (&other parlementary systems) are really elected dictatorships. Diktat is to be expected.

Re:UK (&others) have corrupt PARTIES, not just (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046810)

Too true. First-past the post, safe seats, and the boundary commission all collude to ensure that nothing substantially changes when an election happens. The entire structure is set up to give all the appearances of democracy with none of the reality of it.

Re:UK (&others) have corrupt PARTIES, not just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048050)

Qui buono?

it's cui bono http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono

Corruption.. (4, Interesting)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045794)

Lordy Mandy is one of the more infamous characters of our Labour government. Several times he's been fired/forced to resign over corruption (taking bribes) and effectively fraudulent behaviour. Each time, he keeps getting hired back by the government when they think most people will have forgotten.
He's shown himself to out only for his own personal profit, with flagrant disregard for the public, though a side effect is he also feathers the beds of his political allies in his bargains.

Much of what Labour have brought in during their 12 years in power has been something the governmental organisations in Orwell's 1984 would have been proud of.
Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is".
The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs. However a lot of their social track record (though John Major, the last tory PM was a big change on that) is not so hot. They make the hard decisions.
Labour, on the other hand, are the real "protect the underdog", to the extend of actually oppressing the majority to achieve this end.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is the sweet spot, though the 'middle of the road' party we have isn't balanced by the extremes, but seems to try to muddle along without actually making any hard decisions one way or the other.

The hard decision in this one is "how do we best benefit society to allow ourselves the flexibility to foster creativity at a fundamental level so we can compete globally in the future?".
Hint. It's not to chase file sharers. It's probably more along the lines of reorganising the copyright system from the ground up to fit what we need to achieve as a society, not to prop up the business models of huge corporations. The upcoming economies that will in a generation or so surpass the existing economic powers will, while they're growing fast, play fast and loose with this. If the existing powers remain inflexible, and try to hide behind the old rules, they'll fall. History is full of things like this (Agincourt, American War of Independance etc.). Rules of engagement change, yet the 'old powers' try to hold onto them. They fail eventually and are superseded by a more flexible structure (until that structure ossifies under the pressure of internal greed).

One day, we'll have organisational structures that strike the proper balance over extended periods, but I think that's a long way off. We're a primitive species still trying to struggle with its own success. A lot of this can be marked down to the pains of growing up. Doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are many structures that can govern, and many of them unpleasant.
Come back the old "democracy" where at the end of the year, you voted on someone to exile for the year. HAve them living in penury and social isolation. That, methinks, could serve as a useful tool for those in the limelight.. Let them know there are consequences to actions..

Re:Corruption.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046004)

Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is".
The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs.

Although Labour has during the last ~6-8 years made a mess of it you're qualification of the Tories clearly misses a historic perspective and thus puts a dubious light on the rest of your comments.

The power grabbing you are so upset about is not a Labour or Tory thing, it's the British Way(tm).

There will be no change on the UK's political horizon until you guys get representative representation.

--
Teunis

Re:Corruption.. (3, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046852)

On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs.

OK, I am going to have to stop you there with some reality. The Tories are cut from the same idiotic market fundamentalist cloth you are, sure, but that doesn't translate into smaller government, or economic success. Your neoliberal ideas are unmitigated bullshit.

Take Thatcher for instance: she came to power with a monetarist agenda, which almost immediately crippled the already struggling economy - and this was despite substantial oil revenues coming into the country at the time she took power. The only reason someone so blatantly incompetent was re-elected in 1983 was because she cynically manipulated nationalist sentiment over the Falklands war, and because the left were divided at the time. Much of the rest of her premiership was spent fudging her horrific economic record (lying about the whole monetarist thing, reducing unemployment stats by shifting people onto incapacity who didn't warrant it), ordering extrajudicial killings, and allowing the government budget to increase (which it had to in order to prop up the damaged economy she created. That is the actual economic record of your beloved Tories.

Oh, and trying to equate your economic ideas to those of political freedom is asinine. Business faces fewer regulations in China (hence the lead paint and shit) but that country is clearly less free than anywhere in Western Europe.

Re:Corruption.. (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047694)

Interesting.. But would be good to see some good hard evidence behind that.
Thather got in on the back of the Winter of Discontent [libcom.org] .
When she left power, the economy was in a lot better state than it was when she entered power; there was a rough ride to achieving stability, and a heavy social price was paid.
As to how she created a broken economy when England was actually going to the IMF for over £2 billion before she took the reins of government is quite beyond me. It was thoroughly broken when she got there.
By all means, dislike her, and follow whatever political path you want, but I'm finding your post heavy on rhetoric, low on fact. Now, I can be persuaded by showing proofs of this, and evidence, but not by screaming "bullshit" and claiming incompetence.
And me, a fundamentalist? Oh boy! That did give me a chuckle.

Re:Corruption.. (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047962)

You come across as a market fundamentalist by going on about 'small government' like that in the aftermath of one of the biggest market-caused economic disasters of living memory.

If you want a quick summary of why Thatcher was nothing like the cult of personality the Tories built up around her, I suggest a documentary called 'Pandoras Box' by Adam Curtis. One of the episodes deals with her catastrophic economic experiments.

Re:Corruption.. (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048186)

I'll definitely check that out. Thanks for the reference.. But was hoping for a little more than a documentary (you get ones that have proof pro and proof con). Maybe that'll have some meat in it (if I can get hold of it)..

Cheers..

Re:Corruption.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31048256)

You come across as a market fundamentalist by going on about 'small government' like that in the aftermath of one of the biggest market-caused economic disasters of living memory.

You might like to check out the Communist Manifesto http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61 [gutenberg.org] and Wealth of Nations http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3300 [gutenberg.org] . Should you do so, you will find that our central banking system is much more heavily influenced by socialism than free market economics.

Despite the US Fed apparently being privately owned, the chairman is appointed by the government. A financial system with central price control on a product that exists only by government edict (all paper and electronic currency) is not a free market system. Banking as we know it owes its existence to legislation, so I think it is necessary to restrain it. It is not, however, by any stretch of the imagination a free market.

Supply in free markets is limited by physical reality. Supply in our financial markets is limited by the governments decision on how much money to print, reserve requirements and banking regulations. The producers of apples, for example, can't suddenly inject an extra trillion apples into the market as a stimulus. Land has to be allocated, trees grown, etc. If the only or primary limitation on supply is government I don't see how it can be considered a free market, even if private individuals and corporations participate in it.

Yes, I also take that to mean that any copyright based industry is not a free market.

Copyright... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31045900)

...is a violation of human rights.

Re:Copyright... (1)

malp (108885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31046584)

lol, wut?

First Amendment rights to express myself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31046100)

If corporations have the privilege to use the right to free speech thru election financing, I choose to communicate thru playing and sharing music as to how I am feeling. I use recorded music as a way to express myself. Therefore its a first amendment right to share music with my friends. Really.. I am only expressing myself! - JW

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31047604)

I guess I won't be able to attach a file to an e-mail now.
That's file sharing, right?

Or use the internet at all for that matter... web pages are comprised of lots of files.

Sign here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31047752)

You can sign here :
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/
to make your voice heard on the matter.

The entire bill needs a complete rethink, to be redrafted and actual IT professionals be involved in the consultation process.
Instead of some "Johnny come lately" Politicians that think they know it all drafting something because they got a back hander from the movie studios and record companies.
Enough said.

Accusation 1 (1)

Wardish (699865) | more than 4 years ago | (#31047760)

I believe being a working politician in the USA means and possibly even requires that every politician ignore and/or bypass copyright legislation in order to do their job. Considering the diverse uncontrolled information sources it would be a miracle if one wasn't.

The UK government putting a fork in IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31047928)

The UK government is once again, acting like a collective bunch of dim wits when it comes to the internet and information technology. Once again, they are loading a gun, aiming squarely at their feet, crying out "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN" and pulling the trigger. A while later, they cry out, and to their utter astonishment, find that somehow, they have been wounded and are now suffering. Not to be discouraged, dissuaded or embarrassed by the situation, they reload the weapon, place one bandaged but still bleeding foot beside the other healthy foot, aim carefully, cry out "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN", and pull the trigger. Once again, astonishment, agony, determination, and resolve! There are four more rounds. A dying business model is no reason to once again be on the wrong side of history. Stand up for luddites everywhere! And if you can be draconian at the same time, so much the better! Its the British way!

It is time we get rid of copyrights (1)

piotru (124109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31048790)

Or refuse paying taxes.
Because of prevailing harm to societies it is necessary not to limit, but to abolish the copyrights completely.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>